• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Employer Credit Checks May Soon Be Illegal

Hoplite

Technomancer
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
3,779
Reaction score
1,077
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
In the United States, employers are under no obligation to hire ANYONE. I kinda' like it that way. One can't discriminate based on age, gender, race, religion.
Why not? Why do employers get to decide anything BUT age, gender, race, or religion?
 

Aunt Spiker

Cheese
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
28,431
Reaction score
16,987
Location
Sasnakra
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
I agree that employees are very different at work than at home. True enough. It's really a damn shame when someone's credit is effected by the actions of someone else. People getting divorced and bitter often run up credit as a way of getting even with their soon-to-be-ex. There are plenty of good reasons why responsible people have bad credit.

I rent properties as a licensed Realtor. I explain to people that we're going to run their credit as part of the decision whether or not to rent to them. I've had people give me lengthy explanations for why their credit sucks. I'm totally up for them and, if their explanations make sense, they're good as gold to me. Had one guy tell me his credit was screwed up because of a car he bought he really couldn't afford. He said, "I fixed that problem, though. I gave the car back to the bank." Hellooooo? When I pulled his credit, he had a half-dozen bad checks on it written to a gambling casino. Hmmmm......

Yes - renting history - yes, this is *why* credit-scores are kept! They are kept to protect investors, banks, etc.
 

MaggieD

Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,661
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Why not? Why do employers get to decide anything BUT age, gender, race, or religion?

I'll debate a lot of things, Hoplite, but this one's just absurd. Maybe somebody else will pick it up.
 

imagep

Villiage Idiot
DP Veteran
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
24,399
Reaction score
10,426
Location
Upstate SC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
They shouldn't be able to deny you a job based on circumstances beyond your ability to control, or circumstances which are none of their damn business.

So if you lose your job, and you fall behind on your mortgage, an employer who sees that should be able to deny you the job you are otherwise qualified for and which would help you get caught up?

That's absurd.

Too bad, so sad. Most employers would understand that type of situation. Just because an employer checks a potential employees credit doesnt mean that they will automatically turn them down due to a short time span of credit issues. You are assuming that all employers are bad. I am under the assumption that most employers are good.

Regardless, as an employee, you dont have to work for a company that you dont like. Why should an employer be required to hire someone that they dont like? It has to be a mutually agreeable situation to work.
 

TacticalEvilDan

Shankmasta Killa
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 16, 2008
Messages
10,443
Reaction score
4,479
Location
Western NY and Geneva, CH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Too bad, so sad. Most employers would understand that type of situation. Just because an employer checks a potential employees credit doesnt mean that they will automatically turn them down due to a short time span of credit issues. You are assuming that all employers are bad. I am under the assumption that most employers are good.

Regardless, as an employee, you dont have to work for a company that you dont like. Why should an employer be required to hire someone that they dont like? It has to be a mutually agreeable situation to work.

Then I guess I'll ask you the same question MaggieD opted to avoid addressing:

So then, how come an employer shouldn't be able to decide if skin color is job-related?
 

rivrrat

Goddess of Bacon
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 26, 2007
Messages
13,988
Reaction score
6,593
Location
Charlottesville, VA
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
You have just set back race relations by, hmmm, 150 years. :rofl

I disagree. If you really think that should it become legal to discriminate based on race, our society would revert back to the attitudes of 150 years ago, then you are delusional, IMO.

I think race relations are set back by allowing people to claim they were passed up due to race. The race and gender laws that are currently in place only help to facilitate a victim mentality that needs to be abolished. If we want to move past race and gender issues, then we need to move past the ridiculous notion that these laws are necessary. As long as these laws are in place, race and gender will be issues.

I'm all about transparency. And I think companies should be legally allowed to be as racist and sexist as they wish. Makes it easy for the rest of us to know what companies to avoid altogether. I dislike pushing such attitudes into the dark where we don't know who really thinks what. I'd rather have my enemies out in the open where they can be seen and judged by the public.
 

TacticalEvilDan

Shankmasta Killa
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 16, 2008
Messages
10,443
Reaction score
4,479
Location
Western NY and Geneva, CH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
IMO, they should be able to.

Just to clarify: Are you saying that an employer should be able to refuse to hire someone simply because they have the wrong skin color, even where it could be argued that skin color isn't part of a reasonable job description?

I can see where you'd want a certain skin color in, say, an actor. But to flip burgers, run gas pumps, or run a Fortune 500 company?
 

Hoplite

Technomancer
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
3,779
Reaction score
1,077
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
I'll debate a lot of things, Hoplite, but this one's just absurd. Maybe somebody else will pick it up.
Then give me a quick answer. Why should age and gender off-limits but personal credit history (especially out of context) should not?
 

MaggieD

Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,661
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Then give me a quick answer. Why should age and gender off-limits but personal credit history (especially out of context) should not?

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is responsible for enforcing federal laws that make it illegal to discriminate against a job applicant or an employee because of the person's race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information. It is also illegal to discriminate against a person because the person complained about discrimination, filed a charge of discrimination, or participated in an employment discrimination investigation or lawsuit.

Most employers with at least 15 employees are covered by EEOC laws (20 employees in age discrimination cases). Most labor unions and employment agencies are also covered.

The laws apply to all types of work situations, including hiring, firing, promotions, harassment, training, wages, and benefits

Shorter answer: It's the law.
 

imagep

Villiage Idiot
DP Veteran
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
24,399
Reaction score
10,426
Location
Upstate SC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Then I guess I'll ask you the same question MaggieD opted to avoid addressing:

So then, how come an employer shouldn't be able to decide if skin color is job-related?

I think that employers should be able to decide based on skin color or age or sex or anything else they want to base employment qualifications on.

If an employer thinks that people with green hair make better employees, then that is what that employer should hire. It's really none of my business what another business does. If I don't like what they do, I dont have to work for them or do business with them. If they don't like my skin color then they shouldn't have to hire me.

Personally, I have no issue with hiring minorities. I have had blacks, asians and mexicans and euro-americans as employees. If they can do the job, then I will hire anyone. It is indeed fortunant that there are some people who will unfairly discriminate, but most employers dont do that. Don't punish me for some bad thing that some other employer did. The only way to truely prove that an employer is not hiring based on skin color is to have quotas - but if you have quotas, then that forces employers to hire based on skin color so it would be self defeating.

When I was a child I can remember my dad looking for a job and becoming infuriated when places advertised that they were an "equal opportunity employer" and that other term... ... ..., dang just forgot it, the one that ment that they gave preferance to minorities. Anyhow, you cant be both!

Quite honestly, one of our competitors has a sales lady who is absolutely beautiful. They get some businesses because she is beautiful. If I were a little more cutthroat of a business person, I would only hire beautify people to work with our customers. But I don't think that is right, so I dont do that. But if my competitor wants to do that, they more power to them.
 
Last edited:

Hoplite

Technomancer
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
3,779
Reaction score
1,077
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Shorter answer: It's the law.
Ok, they're moving to change the law so that employers cant check credit scores. So once that becomes law, will that be ok?
 

MaggieD

Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,661
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Ok, they're moving to change the law so that employers cant check credit scores. So once that becomes law, will that be ok?

I think it's just more government interference, but if it's the law, it's fine with me. Don't know if you saw my post that said I personally would not check someone's credit for a job unless it had to do with any kind of fiscal responsibillity...or a position of exceptional trust. Those won't be illegal under any new laws.

That doesn't change my initial posting that I believe that poor credit, barring any extraneous circumstances, indicates lack of responsibiity, though.
 

rivrrat

Goddess of Bacon
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 26, 2007
Messages
13,988
Reaction score
6,593
Location
Charlottesville, VA
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Just to clarify: Are you saying that an employer should be able to refuse to hire someone simply because they have the wrong skin color, even where it could be argued that skin color isn't part of a reasonable job description?

I can see where you'd want a certain skin color in, say, an actor. But to flip burgers, run gas pumps, or run a Fortune 500 company?
I'm saying that a private company should be legally allowed to hire and/or fire people for any reason they want. Be that race, gender, religion, hair color, painted fingernails, or shoe size.
 

TacticalEvilDan

Shankmasta Killa
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 16, 2008
Messages
10,443
Reaction score
4,479
Location
Western NY and Geneva, CH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I'm saying that a private company should be legally allowed to hire and/or fire people for any reason they want. Be that race, gender, religion, hair color, painted fingernails, or shoe size.

Okay.

Now that I understand your position, I think I'm going to have to agree to disagree with you. :)


TED,
Perfectly willing to argue for hours over interpretations of the facts, but can only go so far with diametrically opposed opinions.
 

imagep

Villiage Idiot
DP Veteran
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
24,399
Reaction score
10,426
Location
Upstate SC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Just to clarify: Are you saying that an employer should be able to refuse to hire someone simply because they have the wrong skin color, even where it could be argued that skin color isn't part of a reasonable job description?

I can see where you'd want a certain skin color in, say, an actor. But to flip burgers, run gas pumps, or run a Fortune 500 company?

Sure. If the employer doesn't want to hire someone because of their skin color, that means that person has the wrong skin color for that particular job with that particular employer. Why would you want to force businesses to hire people who are wrong for the situation?

Like you, it is hard for me to imagine someone discriminating against someone for a particular ethic heritage for a job flipping burgers, so that means that most employers probably dont descriminate like that. But if they do, then I can only assume there is a reason. Just because I dont know what the reason is, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Should employers be forced to justify the reason that they turn down every job applicant?

I really don't like to hire left handed people to be offset press operators. You see, our offset press is designed for right handed people. I am not saying that a lefty could never do the job, but they are less likely to be as productive than a righty. Short people quite honestly don't make good press operators either, they often have to stand on a stool to make adjustments to the machine - that means that they waste time moving stools around. Why should I deny the opportunity to hire a tall right handed person just because the law could (potentially) say that you cant discriminate against short left handers?

If you were an asian who applied for a job working for a company owned by a mexican, and that mexican HATED asians, would it be fair to you as an employee to go to work in an enviroment that could be potentially hostile to you? Wouldn't it simply be better to be turned town for being the wrong race?

For every law that we create to fix a social injustice, we create an equal and opposit social injustice.
 

TacticalEvilDan

Shankmasta Killa
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 16, 2008
Messages
10,443
Reaction score
4,479
Location
Western NY and Geneva, CH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Sure. If the employer doesn't want to hire someone because of their skin color, that means that person has the wrong skin color for that particular job with that particular employer. Why would you want to force businesses to hire people who are wrong for the situation?

Those without the means to establish businesses of their own have to find employment in order to survive without the assistance of social programs. Since I don't think we necessarily want to guarantee either public assistance (assuming we have the tax revenues) OR employment (assuming any is available) to every citizen, we need to make make sure we're as fair as possible with both.

On the employment front, that means not permitting discrimination based on factors which an applicant or employee cannot be expected in good faith to alter which also have no reasonable bearing on the performance of the tasks of the position in question.

I really don't like to hire left handed people to be offset press operators. You see, our offset press is designed for right handed people. I am not saying that a lefty could never do the job, but they are less likely to be as productive than a righty. Short people quite honestly don't make good press operators either, they often have to stand on a stool to make adjustments to the machine - that means that they waste time moving stools around. Why should I deny the opportunity to hire a tall right handed person just because the law could (potentially) say that you cant discriminate against short left handers?

Those factors directly impact performance of the actual task, and as such are acceptable grounds for not hiring someone.

If you were an asian who applied for a job working for a company owned by a mexican, and that mexican HATED asians, would it be fair to you as an employee to go to work in an enviroment that could be potentially hostile to you? Wouldn't it simply be better to be turned town for being the wrong race?

No, I'd rather that the owner were to conduct himself like a reasonable adult. :lol:

For every law that we create to fix a social injustice, we create an equal and opposit social injustice.

Really?

What about when we ended slavery?
 

Aunt Spiker

Cheese
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
28,431
Reaction score
16,987
Location
Sasnakra
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
I think that employers should be able to decide based on skin color or age or sex or anything else they want to base employment qualifications on.

If an employer thinks that people with green hair make better employees, then that is what that employer should hire. It's really none of my business what another business does. If I don't like what they do, I dont have to work for them or do business with them. If they don't like my skin color then they shouldn't have to hire me.

Personally, I have no issue with hiring minorities. I have had blacks, asians and mexicans and euro-americans as employees. If they can do the job, then I will hire anyone. It is indeed fortunant that there are some people who will unfairly discriminate, but most employers dont do that. Don't punish me for some bad thing that some other employer did. The only way to truely prove that an employer is not hiring based on skin color is to have quotas - but if you have quotas, then that forces employers to hire based on skin color so it would be self defeating.

When I was a child I can remember my dad looking for a job and becoming infuriated when places advertised that they were an "equal opportunity employer" and that other term... ... ..., dang just forgot it, the one that ment that they gave preferance to minorities. Anyhow, you cant be both!

Quite honestly, one of our competitors has a sales lady who is absolutely beautiful. They get some businesses because she is beautiful. If I were a little more cutthroat of a business person, I would only hire beautify people to work with our customers. But I don't think that is right, so I dont do that. But if my competitor wants to do that, they more power to them.

Of course you would . . . you're an equal-opportunity-discriminator and you drive away your own potential customers when they're just coming into your print shop to order some hum drum business cards. . . because of how they look.
 

jallman

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
36,913
Reaction score
11,282
Location
Los Angeles, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
You have got to be kidding me. Bad credit, in most, not all, instances, has everything to do with character.

No it does not. I've got a kid that works for me in my department now and he has an abyssmal credit check. But he was straight with me about it...he got credit cards in college, didn't know how to handle them, made bad choices and had to choose between his credit or his education. He's working on cleaning it all up now that he is out of school and he's a great kid. I'd trust him with just about anything. And his story is common with the way credit card companies threw cards at kids.

I can't stand idiotic people who refuse to think and analyze a situation on a human level and instead default to a number spat from a fax machine to tell them about someone's character. It's lazy, inhuman, cold and the kind of apathetic, moronic attitude that's at least 90% of what's wrong with the world today.
 
Last edited:

MaggieD

Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,661
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
No it does not. I've got a kid that works for me in my department now and he has an abyssmal credit check. But he was straight with me about it...he got credit cards in college, didn't know how to handle them, made bad choices and had to choose between his credit or his education. He's working on cleaning it all up now that he is out of school and he's a great kid. I'd trust him with just about anything. And his story is common with the way credit card companies threw cards at kids.

I can't stand idiotic people who refuse to think and analyze a situation on a human level and instead default to a number spat from a fax machine to tell them about someone's character. It's lazy, inhuman, cold and the kind of apathetic, moronic attitude that's at least 90% of what's wrong with the world today.

The bolded part tells me this young man learned a valuable lesson. You were so right to give him a chance. There are TONS of instances where bad credit is not the fault of the borrower -- and sometimes one's credit gets hit for something they didn't even do.

It also tells me that his sharing that with YOU effected your thoughts about him in a very positive way. What if he had told you that the reason his credit was bad was because he kept buying things he couldn't afford? And ta' hell with 'em -- they can't do anything anyway. What if he told you he'd bought a big screen that didn't require payments for a year and after the year was up he just figured, "Why pay? What're they gunna' do about it?" What if his credit report showed he didn't pay any child support? What if you see countless credit cards written off because someone isn't paying them -- and hasn't paid them for years? What if his credit report shows he was evicted from his last apartment thru the legal process and lived there 9 months without paying rent?

If you tell me that you think this doesn't reflect on character, I'll eat my hat.

Further, it seems you hired this young man after knowing about his poor credit -- and he didn't dodge it, he explained it. That's the whole point.
 
Last edited:

imagep

Villiage Idiot
DP Veteran
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
24,399
Reaction score
10,426
Location
Upstate SC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Those without the means to establish businesses of their own have to find employment in order to survive without the assistance of social programs. Since I don't think we necessarily want to guarantee either public assistance (assuming we have the tax revenues) OR employment (assuming any is available) to every citizen, we need to make make sure we're as fair as possible with both.

Does requiring businesses to hire just anyone who happens to apply for a job guarantee enough jobs for everyone? Do laws against discrimination actually prevent discrimination? How can you prove that a company discriminated against someone? If I was a white guy, and a black female got the job, how do I know that I wasn't discriminated against? If all companies were require to give preference to minorities would unemployment be any lower?

Personally, I started my business on $1,500. Now I would never recommend anyone to try that, but virtually everyone has the "means to establish bsuinesses". During the spring it seems like every ya-who with a lawn mower is starting a grass cutting business (they are all coming to us for business cards). It's actually possible to start a business with no resources other than your brain.



No, I'd rather that the owner were to conduct himself like a reasonable adult. :lol:

Me to. Sometimes not hiring someone that you know you will have ill feelings (for any reason) towards is conducting oneself like a reasonable adult.

I am quite sure that slave owners felt that they were robbed when they had to release slaves that they bought and paid for. I am not suggesting that slavery was right, it certainly wasn't. But not allowing employers to choose the type of employees that they prefer is unfair to the employer and to job applicants. If you create laws that take away my right as a business owner to run my business the way I see fit, then you have infringed upon my rights.

Laws rarely create freedom or opportunity, they tend to restrict it.
 

TacticalEvilDan

Shankmasta Killa
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 16, 2008
Messages
10,443
Reaction score
4,479
Location
Western NY and Geneva, CH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Does requiring businesses to hire just anyone who happens to apply for a job guarantee enough jobs for everyone? Do laws against discrimination actually prevent discrimination? How can you prove that a company discriminated against someone? If I was a white guy, and a black female got the job, how do I know that I wasn't discriminated against? If all companies were require to give preference to minorities would unemployment be any lower?

I was having this very discussion with ArcanaXV on the side, and I freely admit that simply having a law on the books doesn't mean squat all on its own. Discrimination -- real discrimination -- is very hard to prove.

Even so, I believe it is important that there be a mechanism for redress in the event that a demonstrable manifestation of said discrimination is, in fact, found.

Personally, I started my business on $1,500. Now I would never recommend anyone to try that, but virtually everyone has the "means to establish bsuinesses". During the spring it seems like every ya-who with a lawn mower is starting a grass cutting business (they are all coming to us for business cards). It's actually possible to start a business with no resources other than your brain.

I suppose, but people have limits, and simply saying "you can do it if you put your mind to it" isn't always enough, in practice.

Me to. Sometimes not hiring someone that you know you will have ill feelings (for any reason) towards is conducting oneself like a reasonable adult.

If you have ill feelings towards someone simply because of their skin color, ethnic heritage, religious affiliation, physical appearance, political disposition, sexual orientation, and yes even credit rating, it is my opinion that you are not a reasonable adult. To act like one, you would need to keep your animosity to yourself.

I am quite sure that slave owners felt that they were robbed when they had to release slaves that they bought and paid for. I am not suggesting that slavery was right, it certainly wasn't.

You didn't answer my question.

You said, "For every law that we create to fix a social injustice, we create an equal and opposit social injustice."

I asked you, "What about when we ended slavery?"

I'm not asking you how you think the slave owners felt. I'm asking you if the abolition of slavery created an equal and opposite social injustice.

But not allowing employers to choose the type of employees that they prefer is unfair to the employer and to job applicants. If you create laws that take away my right as a business owner to run my business the way I see fit, then you have infringed upon my rights.

We need fewer laws not more.

In thoery, I do agree, but in practice -- especially in today's economy, with how hard it is to find work and thus how hard it's getting to pay the bills -- this kind of arbitrary BS is taking food out of the mouths of able-bodied workers.

Would you rather they go on public assistance?
 
Last edited:

TacticalEvilDan

Shankmasta Killa
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 16, 2008
Messages
10,443
Reaction score
4,479
Location
Western NY and Geneva, CH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Besides, if memory serves, isn't illegal for someone to run a credit check on you without your consent?

If we make it illegal to discriminate based on credit checks, employers will stop checking credit, which means there won't actually be anything to prove because there won't be any discrimination on that front.
 
Top Bottom